10/2/2013

I knew they had planned to but had trouble finding reportage on whether they did. Well, they did, so spread the word:

The House approved three targeted spending resolutions to the Senate on Wednesday, daring Senate Democrats to vote against measures to immediately fund the District of Columbia, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the National Park Service.

The bills are part of the House Republican plan to pass spending bills in areas where there is bipartisan agreement in order to spare some pieces of the government from the shutdown.

It appears that it is more important to Democrats to maintain the bad headlines than it is to Get Things Done.

But while Democrats support these priorities, they mostly opposed attempts to pass them in the House. Democrats said Republicans were using the bills as part of a political strategy to mitigate the effects of the shutdown when they should instead pass a Senate spending resolution that funds the entire government.

“The majority is making itself clear,” said Rep. Louise Slaughter (D-N.Y.). “Any time they see a bad headline, they’re going to bring a bill to the floor to make it go away.”

Yup. Another way to put it is, if we see a program that is popular and deserves funding, we will vote for it.

God, I love this tactic.

Why does Louise Slaughter hate national parks and cancer patients?

Look at how they’ll lie to combat this strategy:

Most Democrats opposed this bill as well, and said it amounts to playing needy groups off each other.

“Every day the Republican leadership tries to find a new way to pit one desperate group of Americans against another,” said Rep. George Miller (D-Calif.). “Today Republicans are pitting kids with cancer against kids who are hungry because of the shutdown.”

But the House passed the NIH bill nonetheless, in a 254-171 vote that saw 25 Democrats join with all Republicans except one.

Kids are hungry because non-essential government employees are on vacation (and will no doubt be paid in full for their days of nonwork)?

Hungry???

Please.

Tell us how kids are hungry because of the slowdown, and we’ll pass a bill to end that too! And you’ll vote against it, George Miller. Won’t you?

Meanwhile, the tactic I proposed here Monday night — fund those programs that are very popular and should be funded — is working beautifully . . . at least as a political matter. As JD noted earlier, it resulted in a CNN reporter asking Harry Reid the standard “why are you so heartless” question: namely, if Republicans will fund the NIH, making clinical trials for cancer patients possible, why won’t you pass that bill?

And the answer is, Harry Reid wants to hold those cancer patients hostage to his view that every last piece of the federal government must be funded, or NOTHING gets funded.

Now who’s being extremist? Now who is being heartless?

Meanwhile, the L.A. Times and every other media outlet portrays this as a problem caused by Republicans. It’s so predictable it’s hardly worth the effort to point it out.

What makes this different, though, is that as Republicans continue to pass targeted funding bills, it will become harder and harder for Harry Reid and Barack Obama to explain why this popular program or that one is not getting funded.

Why do Harry Reid and Barack Obama hate cancer patients? Their fate should not be treated as a political football. That they insist on doing so is disgusting though not surprising.

The Republican leadership adopted a new plan to at least buy time — offering three measures that would reopen specific, popular parts of the government, including parks and veterans services.

Democrats quickly circled the wagons against the idea, and the White House threatened a veto.

“This shutdown isn’t about spending or deficit or budgets,” the president said at the White House. “This shutdown is about rolling back our efforts to provide health insurance to folks who don’t have it. This, more than anything else, seems to be what the Republican Party stands for these days.”

“People shouldn’t have to choose between help for our veterans and cancer research,” said Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.). “And we shouldn’t have to choose between visiting our national parks or enrolling kids in Head Start.”

We’re not forcing anyone to choose right now, chump. We’re offering to fund national parks. And you’re turning down the offer?!?!?!

Apparently this all went nowhere yesterday because House Republicans used some procedure other than “regular order” and the votes needed a 2/3 majority as a result. Bad idea. It seems they have recognized their mistake and will bring up these bills again today and likely pass them:

House Majority Whip Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) told TPM that the House would bring the legislation up Wednesday under regular order, which would only require a majority vote.

It’s likely to pass then, but it isn’t going anywhere. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (R-NV) has already rejected a piecemeal approach to funding the government, and the White House has threatened to veto any piecemeal legislation.

Another House Democratic aide told TPM that Tuesday’s vote and the one coming Wednesday are therefore effectively stall tactics.

Imagine a conversation between a non-lapdog Big Media Member and Harry Reid after an Obama veto, or Democrats knocking down one of these bills in the Senate:

HARRY REID: Republicans are shutting down national parks!

NON=LAPDOG BIG MEDIA MEMBER: But they passed a bill to fund the national parks. You argued against it. Obama vetoed it.

HARRY REID: They’re playing games! It’s a stall tactic! The public shouldn’t have to choose!

NON=LAPDOG BIG MEDIA MEMBER: How can you blame Republicans for not funding something when they specifically voted to fund it?

HARRY REID:

HARRY REID: They’re releasing one hostage at a time!

That last is Nancy P’s analogy. Let’s go with that for a second. We are not asking for any concessions to fund these programs, so it’s like offering to release a hostage without conditions. Maybe the cops like the fact that the terrorists are holding Aunt Rosie, because people like Aunt Rosie. So the terrorists figure that out and say they will release Aunt Rosie, as long as the cops agree.

If the cops don’t agree, whose fault is it now that Aunt Rosie is still being held hostage?

The cops are worried about the other hostages, like Uncle Fester the baby raper. He gives the cops bribe money, and they want to make sure he gets released. If the terrorists release Aunt Rosie, maybe the public won’t care about Uncle Fester. And the bribe money goes away.

If that was hard to follow, this isn’t: you can’t blame us for not funding something if we voted to fund it.

Sooner or later, even the aggressive Big Media filter will not be able to screen this out.

SEARCH AMAZON USING THIS SEARCH BOX:
We are a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for us to earn fees by linking to Amazon.com and affiliated sites.